10-17-2012, 10:32 PM
PART 2:
Severus Alexanders habit of keeping peace by paying subsidiaries to the enemy led to a revolt on
March, 18th or 19th 235, when he was slain by his troops togather with his mother and other relatives. The troops declared Gajus Julius Verus Maximianus, called „Thrax“, the „chief instructor“
of the expeditionary force Emperor. He was around 60 of age already, then.
He was a man that served „his way up“ ,rising to high ranks by merit, but he was not linked tot he senatory nobility of Rome in any way, which should bring his downfall, eventually.
Being a true soldier he immediately went to action, the sources stating that he won a big battle
„in the moor“. The distances given in the sources have remained controversial, as ist he location
„in the moor“ – which could be a mere „topos“ for remote locations of operations, rather than an exact description of the exact place.
Dr. Geschwinde then went back to the traces left by the people involved, both Romans and Germans.
It was obvious, so he said, that a essential part oft he finds also consisted of parts oft he „impedimenta“ like hipposandals (yes, ist plural!), metal harness-guides, yokes and their parts,
a bell of bronce [Rem.: Similar find at Kalkriese IIRC !]some wagonry parts like parts of hubs and associated pegs and other fittings.
Along with it came to lights a couple of tools like axes , especially dolabra [Rem.: yes, -- more than one !] and drawing-axes—although some could also have been used as weapons –from both sides.
Also a set of keys turned up and the cover of an ink-pot.
The distribution oft he finds clearly show a distribution from West to the East, as shown by
The pictures projected against the wall. [Rem.: D***, I need new glasses !]
It was in the later part (of the area), where typical roman weaponry turned up:
2 Pila, visibly used; parts of (at least ?) 2 helmets [Rem.: I’m not 100% sure whether the pics shown here depicted a Theilenhofen-type or a Heddernheim-type, but as 2 helmets from Frankfurt-Heddernheim will also be shown at Braunschweig next year, my vote goes for the latter type – definitely.] ,parts of lorica squamata, a bowed fibula, belt fittings for narrow military belts with small phallic idols attached and fittings for horses‘ harnessing.
[The lor. squa. giving a hint towards troops from the roman east, I‘d say.]
Dr. Geschwinde then came back tot he finds that first promoted the idea of a battlefield on that place at the Harzhorn : Missile-, bolt-, arrow- and spear-tips.
Basically there are a lot of tips for catapult-bolts, typical for roman military, then there are arrow-tips, mostly of the 3-finned types that are related to roman units and to a minor part ,some related to germanic warriors.
There are different types of spears and javelins, a minor part of them relating to germanic warriors,most of them related to roman military and the ones who have been found more recently in increasing numbers can clearly be attributed to Mauretanic spear-slingers, by their type.
[Rem.: And later by the way that they have been used, too ]
So far, no clear finds have been made that can securely be attributed to that Cataphractaria-units,that have been mentioned a spart oft he expeditionary force.
There has, however, a lance-tip of cm. 50cm lenght been found recently, but attributing it to
the Cataphractarii would still be speculatory according to „recent wisdom“.
Also another special kind of lance-tip has been found, which at first glance looks similar to a piece found at Trier [ IIRC Dr. geschwinde mentions Dr. Fischer to consider that type a spart of a vexillium], but with at least 3 times of the size of the „Trier-part.
The germanic lance-/spear-tips show a wider dispersion than their roman counterparts which show certain „centers-of-gravity“.
Now, asked Dr. Geschwinde, can we make a reconstruction of the battle already from the distribution of the finds ?
First the mapping-topography has to be taken into account.
The Harzhorn is forming a defile.
This the romans surely knew.
As the germans knew how the romans would act.
Adding to that ist he geographic situation :
On the eastside we have alumina earth promoting stagnative humidity.
From the old times on we therefore have all traffic connections running on the west side.
[Rem.: Therefore we should expect more finds in that area ?!]
The finds seem tob e arranged in „hotspots“ – five oft hem more „rich“ the others less.
Of major interests hereof are:
--„5“ – west of the main ridge
-- The Main Ridge, where the roman main attack seems to have been „aimed at“.
--„2“ – east of the main ridge
At the at „2“ [I,m not sure whether I got the right order here – folks I’ve been tired ;-) !] we have the remains of arrows and catapult-bolts clearly aimed from the north „into the slope“.
There seem to have been „centers of gravity“ with those, whereas the spear-tipe seem more widely dispersed.
At the Main Ridge we have the remains „arranged“ more disorderly.
The main direction seems to have changed towards east, then southeast, then south uphill left.
In the western part we have a direction to northwest indicated.
All in all one can assume that the „mixover“ in the center would indicate close-combat, centering along the Main Ridge. Two places uphill seem to have subjected to „cross-fire“, as indicated by the „main directions of fire“.
„5“ ist he most impassable area oft he hotspots in question. It is there where most oft he wagonry-parts,some more hipposandals and (roman?!) speartips have been found.
This could indicate roman mule-wagons tripping over down the slope with the mules probably panicking while being attacked.
Besides this area is another area with a dense array of finds already made, and since it is rather „new“ and has not been in the „center of interest“ for long, Dr. Geschwinde said he would not disclose ist exact location (the pics shows an area uphill !). It is there where the main finds of roman helmet parts, pila parts and roman spear-tips have been made along with a couple of coins --- but no arrow-tips and tips of catapult-bolts yet.
The roman projectiles (spears) are pointing towards northeast, densely packed with 5m distance between them at average.
Since a couple of wagonry parts have been made there, one may assume that mounted spearslingers may have
Performed a conter-attack against an asailment towards roman baggage.
With the „face“ of this battle probably slightly modified through new finds, Dr. Geschwinde posed the questuions if we could single out participants of this campaign.
On the germanic side we have no epigraphic evidence , leaving the question whether „noble burials“ like the
„Prince of Gommern“ may be exemplary fort he leaders on the germanic side.
The roman side however, is better „documented“ by far as we have one further memorial-/grave-stone from a member of the abovementioned Ala Nova Firma Milliaria Cathaphractaria, the Decurio Biribam Absei from Frankfurt-Heddernheim/Nida ( CIL XIII 7323).
Furthermore we have coinage struck by Maximinus „Thrax“ and a couple of inscriptions by him, although most of
Them were subjected to „damnatio memoriae /Condemn of Memory“ [= destroying/erasing inscriptions with the name oft he person subjected to the d.m.]
The next question Dr. Geschwinde turned to, was the one about „how did this area look like in roman times“.
Usually in those times the soil of Germania Magna/Libera ouside the area of settlements was covered with mixed beech-forest. This would have made the use of cavallery possible.
Also the uneven dispersion of finds would offer the conclusion that the area showed different types of „flora“ .
After a „recursio“ to his alleged „lack of knowledge“ in „Roman affairs“ Dr. Geschwinde then turned to the last question:
„What was the aim/objective of the roman action ?“
The geographical aim may well have been the Elbe, like it was 230 years before.
Factual aims would have been liberating prisoners from the germanic incursions beforeand/or depriving the incursors of their loot, finally : trying to keep the „Elbgermanic Expansion“ under control, a dynamic process which was in full bloom right then as finds from the Germania Libera, dating from this time, suggest.
Part of this is reflected by recent excavations in that area and the coin finds made with them.
As an afterthought --- I should have written this review while my memory was fresher – but, well, again ist a matter
of „time available“. Therefore I’d consider this as rather „quick’n dirty“ than „extensive“.
As always – this is open to discussion. Hints towards factual mistakes welcome. English is still a foreign languages to me, so : Misspellings are owed to lack of knowledge, time and sleep, not necessarily in that order – those who find them may keep them. [ I‘ve lost count of how many admendments I’ve been forced to make ] :mrgreen:
Ah yes , adding to my "frolics" was that I was unable to upload this as one.
As you see, I've worked my way around this problem. ;-)
Severus Alexanders habit of keeping peace by paying subsidiaries to the enemy led to a revolt on
March, 18th or 19th 235, when he was slain by his troops togather with his mother and other relatives. The troops declared Gajus Julius Verus Maximianus, called „Thrax“, the „chief instructor“
of the expeditionary force Emperor. He was around 60 of age already, then.
He was a man that served „his way up“ ,rising to high ranks by merit, but he was not linked tot he senatory nobility of Rome in any way, which should bring his downfall, eventually.
Being a true soldier he immediately went to action, the sources stating that he won a big battle
„in the moor“. The distances given in the sources have remained controversial, as ist he location
„in the moor“ – which could be a mere „topos“ for remote locations of operations, rather than an exact description of the exact place.
Dr. Geschwinde then went back to the traces left by the people involved, both Romans and Germans.
It was obvious, so he said, that a essential part oft he finds also consisted of parts oft he „impedimenta“ like hipposandals (yes, ist plural!), metal harness-guides, yokes and their parts,
a bell of bronce [Rem.: Similar find at Kalkriese IIRC !]some wagonry parts like parts of hubs and associated pegs and other fittings.
Along with it came to lights a couple of tools like axes , especially dolabra [Rem.: yes, -- more than one !] and drawing-axes—although some could also have been used as weapons –from both sides.
Also a set of keys turned up and the cover of an ink-pot.
The distribution oft he finds clearly show a distribution from West to the East, as shown by
The pictures projected against the wall. [Rem.: D***, I need new glasses !]
It was in the later part (of the area), where typical roman weaponry turned up:
2 Pila, visibly used; parts of (at least ?) 2 helmets [Rem.: I’m not 100% sure whether the pics shown here depicted a Theilenhofen-type or a Heddernheim-type, but as 2 helmets from Frankfurt-Heddernheim will also be shown at Braunschweig next year, my vote goes for the latter type – definitely.] ,parts of lorica squamata, a bowed fibula, belt fittings for narrow military belts with small phallic idols attached and fittings for horses‘ harnessing.
[The lor. squa. giving a hint towards troops from the roman east, I‘d say.]
Dr. Geschwinde then came back tot he finds that first promoted the idea of a battlefield on that place at the Harzhorn : Missile-, bolt-, arrow- and spear-tips.
Basically there are a lot of tips for catapult-bolts, typical for roman military, then there are arrow-tips, mostly of the 3-finned types that are related to roman units and to a minor part ,some related to germanic warriors.
There are different types of spears and javelins, a minor part of them relating to germanic warriors,most of them related to roman military and the ones who have been found more recently in increasing numbers can clearly be attributed to Mauretanic spear-slingers, by their type.
[Rem.: And later by the way that they have been used, too ]
So far, no clear finds have been made that can securely be attributed to that Cataphractaria-units,that have been mentioned a spart oft he expeditionary force.
There has, however, a lance-tip of cm. 50cm lenght been found recently, but attributing it to
the Cataphractarii would still be speculatory according to „recent wisdom“.
Also another special kind of lance-tip has been found, which at first glance looks similar to a piece found at Trier [ IIRC Dr. geschwinde mentions Dr. Fischer to consider that type a spart of a vexillium], but with at least 3 times of the size of the „Trier-part.
The germanic lance-/spear-tips show a wider dispersion than their roman counterparts which show certain „centers-of-gravity“.
Now, asked Dr. Geschwinde, can we make a reconstruction of the battle already from the distribution of the finds ?
First the mapping-topography has to be taken into account.
The Harzhorn is forming a defile.
This the romans surely knew.
As the germans knew how the romans would act.
Adding to that ist he geographic situation :
On the eastside we have alumina earth promoting stagnative humidity.
From the old times on we therefore have all traffic connections running on the west side.
[Rem.: Therefore we should expect more finds in that area ?!]
The finds seem tob e arranged in „hotspots“ – five oft hem more „rich“ the others less.
Of major interests hereof are:
--„5“ – west of the main ridge
-- The Main Ridge, where the roman main attack seems to have been „aimed at“.
--„2“ – east of the main ridge
At the at „2“ [I,m not sure whether I got the right order here – folks I’ve been tired ;-) !] we have the remains of arrows and catapult-bolts clearly aimed from the north „into the slope“.
There seem to have been „centers of gravity“ with those, whereas the spear-tipe seem more widely dispersed.
At the Main Ridge we have the remains „arranged“ more disorderly.
The main direction seems to have changed towards east, then southeast, then south uphill left.
In the western part we have a direction to northwest indicated.
All in all one can assume that the „mixover“ in the center would indicate close-combat, centering along the Main Ridge. Two places uphill seem to have subjected to „cross-fire“, as indicated by the „main directions of fire“.
„5“ ist he most impassable area oft he hotspots in question. It is there where most oft he wagonry-parts,some more hipposandals and (roman?!) speartips have been found.
This could indicate roman mule-wagons tripping over down the slope with the mules probably panicking while being attacked.
Besides this area is another area with a dense array of finds already made, and since it is rather „new“ and has not been in the „center of interest“ for long, Dr. Geschwinde said he would not disclose ist exact location (the pics shows an area uphill !). It is there where the main finds of roman helmet parts, pila parts and roman spear-tips have been made along with a couple of coins --- but no arrow-tips and tips of catapult-bolts yet.
The roman projectiles (spears) are pointing towards northeast, densely packed with 5m distance between them at average.
Since a couple of wagonry parts have been made there, one may assume that mounted spearslingers may have
Performed a conter-attack against an asailment towards roman baggage.
With the „face“ of this battle probably slightly modified through new finds, Dr. Geschwinde posed the questuions if we could single out participants of this campaign.
On the germanic side we have no epigraphic evidence , leaving the question whether „noble burials“ like the
„Prince of Gommern“ may be exemplary fort he leaders on the germanic side.
The roman side however, is better „documented“ by far as we have one further memorial-/grave-stone from a member of the abovementioned Ala Nova Firma Milliaria Cathaphractaria, the Decurio Biribam Absei from Frankfurt-Heddernheim/Nida ( CIL XIII 7323).
Furthermore we have coinage struck by Maximinus „Thrax“ and a couple of inscriptions by him, although most of
Them were subjected to „damnatio memoriae /Condemn of Memory“ [= destroying/erasing inscriptions with the name oft he person subjected to the d.m.]
The next question Dr. Geschwinde turned to, was the one about „how did this area look like in roman times“.
Usually in those times the soil of Germania Magna/Libera ouside the area of settlements was covered with mixed beech-forest. This would have made the use of cavallery possible.
Also the uneven dispersion of finds would offer the conclusion that the area showed different types of „flora“ .
After a „recursio“ to his alleged „lack of knowledge“ in „Roman affairs“ Dr. Geschwinde then turned to the last question:
„What was the aim/objective of the roman action ?“
The geographical aim may well have been the Elbe, like it was 230 years before.
Factual aims would have been liberating prisoners from the germanic incursions beforeand/or depriving the incursors of their loot, finally : trying to keep the „Elbgermanic Expansion“ under control, a dynamic process which was in full bloom right then as finds from the Germania Libera, dating from this time, suggest.
Part of this is reflected by recent excavations in that area and the coin finds made with them.
As an afterthought --- I should have written this review while my memory was fresher – but, well, again ist a matter
of „time available“. Therefore I’d consider this as rather „quick’n dirty“ than „extensive“.
As always – this is open to discussion. Hints towards factual mistakes welcome. English is still a foreign languages to me, so : Misspellings are owed to lack of knowledge, time and sleep, not necessarily in that order – those who find them may keep them. [ I‘ve lost count of how many admendments I’ve been forced to make ] :mrgreen:
Ah yes , adding to my "frolics" was that I was unable to upload this as one.
As you see, I've worked my way around this problem. ;-)
Siggi K.
